It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


On the Purpose of Law

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:14 AM
Is the purpose of law not to have a healthy society where the individual and the society as a whole have the best life experience? This requires a few things, including input from both the members of society and also input from science and empirical testing.

What is empirical testing and science? Well, empirical testing is simple - even in areas like physics, someone comes up with a theory, and then that theory is tested - if it can be replicated in the laboratory, then it becomes more valid than before. Science is the idea that experts in their field know the interactions that happen in their field better than politicians or emotional power brokers.

If someone is making a law that covers an area they don't understand while not listening to expert testimony or reading the factual data, they are likely to be enacting a law that is going to result in unhealthy situations for people and society.


What happens if someone enacts laws that benefit them at the expense of others below them because they have gained enough money and power to be sloppy and inaccurate in their en-action of laws? The more money and power someone has, the less they are held accountable to either those below them or to the facts, data and expert testimony.

If a law is passed in a situation such as this, where there is the option for it to be passed in a more healthy manner, is this law just? If someone knowingly forces a law though that goes against available expert testimony and against available data, is that law just?


Some issues to consider on the other side of this debate: What if the majority want a law that harms society or even themselves? But what if that majority has been misinformed or manipulated about the facts and data?

In a free country, should we not be free to enact laws that make no sense? The rebuttal to this is no, because that limits the freedom of others while simultaneously promoting destructive and unhealthy behavior through force of will.

What about enacting so many laws that it becomes hard to follow them in order to encourage a healthy society? In my opinion, that is a legitimate concern.

Although at some time, a law has to be passed, and is it better to pass one with or without expert testimony, facts, and data when the three are available?

If people with money / power deliberately attempt to skew the data through manipulating it to obtain the result they want, and it affects the law, is the law still just? What if the people skewing the laws are fundamentalists who answer to a higher power?

The questions in this last section are really meant to think about and discuss, part of the reason I put them there was to give discussion points on both sides.
edit on 05amSat, 05 Apr 2014 04:21:44 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:30 AM
Powerful observations.

Does the reader ever wonder why there isn't an old fashioned covetousness law?

Because it would be too easy to prove.

"I made it. But. You own it."

I mean if I made something, and Westinghouse, Sears, or Disney did something mega with it. Why dose the current legal system default to the corporation gets to own intellectual property in perpetuity.

double you tee eff

Add in the fact that we have secret courts now.

What I consider the most un American thing I can think of. The legal system has completely jumped the shark. People can barely afford to see a Doctor, let alone encounter any kind of legal representation to advance their efforts. But secret courts. Really. What the hell is Washington saying. "We're going dark because even lawyers are not trustworthy."

Mike Grouchy

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by darkbake

I have been focusing on legal plunder so far but, so called 'social laws' should be examined.

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by darkbake

Corporations have influence over corporate/finance laws.This is why corporate laws benefit the corporations and not necessarily the people who work for them.

Social laws are more dictated by the people in society. Corporate heads are not included because, by and large, they're not down here in the thick of things like we are. To think that the people highest up on the food chain have a say in social laws is to miss the boat. They don't care. America being the melting pot that it is, social laws are going to be anything but perfect and will always be better for some people than others. That's what makes America different from most any other country in the world. Our system might be the best, but the sheer diversity of the population makes it to where the system will never operate at 100% efficiency, making it look like something straight out of a third world country.

However, when a bill is introduced to whatever legal authority is in charge of passing it into law or not, pay attention to how long it takes to pass through the system. If it passes through the system quickly, corporate influence was heard and the bill will pass into law, or not, depending on whether it benefits said corporate influence. Most of the time it does, that's why they're involved in the first place. If the bill drags on and on with no say, that means that corporate influence is not there and the legislative body in charge has to think for themselves and make a decision based on their own knowledge. This isn't something they're good at so this is why it takes so long for them to do something sometimes.

Ask any lawyer worth his salt and he'll tell you the same thing.

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 05:46 PM
Ideally law would only exist to protect your inalienable rights from being infringed upon by others which means there would be no laws being passed just to protect you from yourself (no more things like seatbelt and helmet laws among other things).

Where things get sticky is when we talk about ownership. This is where a corporation makes the claim that what you created could only have been made with their resources at your disposal. In other words, you couldn't have done it without their facilities and materials - it would only be an idea because you could not have financed it on your own, and you are their employee whom they paid to produce said creation.

In a fair world, they would compensate you well for what you produced. We don't always live in a fair world. I say this is the wife of someone who made a piece of equipment work far more efficiently than it was intended to by its manufacturer and made up a company-proprietary media preparation that specifically allows testing for seven very disparate organisms in one test. They talked about patenting it at one point.

Generally speaking, the law has become more of a problem than it is a help, and we are entering a time when it is being used as a weapon against us rather than as a safeguard to protect which is what it should be.

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 06:15 PM
Plus, who has time to actually read the whole print? Make it sound good on TV or in your county talks. Yet under the print is the Other small add-ons most do not notice!

Laws are nothing more then how one should be or act within a group of people. Since people can not be trusted nor tell the truth anyways. There should be just one Law, Respect! Somehow it was deemed long ago to be forgotten, unnoticed and left behind.

Respect was towards your elders and knowing this would have been passed down to the children. The World has No Respect for Anything! Laws have no respect for all, just for a class of people who want it their way. Since their way is crumbling, lets make new laws! Yet leaving out the respect even for the simple people who actually Move the World.

To be a Great King, one must Respect All People down to the lowest of the low! Once you lose that Respect, you have already failed! Same with a company, treat your people at the bottom as you treat the ones at top; there are ways, and all work to keep it running.

Then you have others who use them Laws; like GM lol! Lately, we have new Laws on who can actually Vote so might as well consider never voting again since its all rigged anyways! What would happen if No One Voted?

Next would be you will have to vote, and so forth! It's the Law!



log in